skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> How do we know that wouldn't happen anyway

We don't know what would happen if we didn't screw ourselves, but we have some idea what will happen from what we are doing.

> How do we know that the planet getting 2C hotter is the cause, and exactly how much of the cause it is?

2C? You're being optimistic. We've past 1.5 this year. The consequences of climate change have just started: right now it's minimal (people die from natural disasters, but globally that's minimal). What we see, though, is that "bad things" (e.g. natural disasters, extreme events) are happening faster and worse than what our models predicted.

In other words, every day we observe that the consequences of us screwing the climate is worse than what we thought. Let's now think a bit about that part: the "optimistic" scenario:

* We are now heading towards 4C unless we dramatically change the way we live. 2C is already out of reach, 1.5C is already here.

* At 4C, you have a whole strip of countries around the equator that becomes unlivable for humans: it's too hot and humid, meaning that we can't regulate our temperature by sweating, meaning that we die. We are not talking a few millions refugees, we are talking billions.

* Imagine billions of people, from entire countries, deciding to move to livable territories. We're talking billions of people, with their military, moving into the lands of other billions people with their military. We have never seen that in human history, but it doesn't seem good.

* Apart from that strip of land and the 4C, in a much shorter term we are talking droughts. Imagine first world countries not having enough food for everybody.

* And last point: all of this (and more) happens in a world were the amount of oil is dangerously reaching a peak (in some places it already has: the European economy feels it since 2007 because access to oil has become harder since then). Not only it means more wars for oil, but also it means that globally we will have less oil to tackle those challenges. There is no real alternative to oil, that's just a fact: we will have less energy, whatever it is.

* Of course, in order to tackle all those challenges, we will need energy. So we will be more likely to keep using oil as much as we can, which makes it even more likely that we are going towards a world with 4C.

Last fact: the climate changes that made the dinosaurs (and countless other species) disappear happened orders of magnitude slower than what we are measuring (I'm not talking predictions, but actual measurements). So it's not completely stupid to wonder if our species (on top of the countless others that have already and will disappear in the next few decades) will disappear entirely.

And again: all that I wrote above is the optimistic prediction from our current models. And from what we measure, it's actually coming faster, harder and stronger.

You can rationalise as much as you want: if you are not alarmed, you are either uninformed or irrational.
It's not a fashion statement, it's a fucking deathwish
any place you have your current progress written up on? Any methodology I could help contribute on? I've read each one of the four links you've given over the years and it seems vague with how far people have currently gotten and exact issues.
Does MV3 do anything to stop the behaviour of Honey?
> How do you propose humane population control?

Actually, in many (most?) countries this is already happening, for better or for worse. It's just a limited subset of areas/countries that have quick population growth. This has different causes and the possible solutions are politically, socially, religiously and economically complex. Or rather, getting to a situation where a solution is applied is complex more than the actual solution.
I shouldn't need to opt into or out of features that shouldn't exist in the first place, much less in a browser.
The larger problem are things that have global effect: databases, caches, files, static memory, etc. Or protocols between different systems. These are hard to abstract away, usually because of shared state.
> I don't think most immutable distros are designed to prevent users from mounting the root filesystem as read write.

Someone mentioned running Puppy Linux from a CD/DVD (write once).

I do wonder: it'd probably be possible for me to boot a Linux distro from a DVD and then launch Promox and my VMs/containers automatically. I take it I'd have to burn a new DVD every time a security patch affecting programs installed on the bare system comes out.

The "main" OS would be hard to compromise in a persistent way as you cannot remount a write-only DVD read-write.
> Orc (Cyrillic: орк, romanised: ork), plural orcs (Russian and Ukrainian: орки), is a pejorative commonly used by many Ukrainians to refer to a Russian soldier participating in the Russian-Ukrainian War and Russian citizens who support the aggression of Russia against Ukraine.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(slang)
Mozilla doesn't seem to care much about creating linkrot. They've previously deleted a bunch of historical docs such as their JavaScript engine release notes with changelog information.
Solving creative problems is often iterative, and one things I'm very concerned about when doing engineering management is maintaining momentum and flow. Looking at latency hierarchies is a really good example, you have registers, then cache, then memory, SSD, network etc. and consulting with another human asynchronously is like sending a message to Jupiter (in the best case).

So, with an iterative process, the more times you introduce (at best) hour long delays, you end up sitting on your arse twiddling your thumbs doing nothing, until the response comes back.

The concept of making PRs as you go fails to capture one of the aspects of low-latency problem solving, which is that you catch a problem, you correct it and you revise it locally, without exiting that loop. Which is problematic because not only have you put yourself in a situation where you're waiting for a response, but you've stopped half-way through an unfinished idea.

This comes back to 'is it done', a gut feel that it's an appropriate time to break the loop and incur the latency cost, which for every developer will be different and is something that I have grown to deeply trust and and adjust to for everybody I work with.

What I'm getting at is the iterative problem solving process often can't be neatly dissected into discrete units while it's happening, and after we've reached the 'doneness' point it takes much more work to undo part of your work and re-do it than it took to do originally, so not only do you have the async overhead of every interaction, but you have the cognitive burden of untangling what was previously a cohesive unit of thought - which again is another big time killer
Natural History (Pliny)
> We're not all going to starve to death if crop yields go down slightly.

You vastly under-estimate the problem. We are talking about crop yields going down dramatically. The way we are heading right now, it's completely worthless to talk about livestock: the question is really how many billions will die because we can't grow enough food anymore.
I understand us to be talking about the options available to the original copyright holder, yes.
I'd expect WinGet and Chocolatey to be tested as much as any other Windows software. They are not niche packages.
As a user 'intuitive' UIs that hide a bunch of undisclosed but relevant complexity send me into a frothing rage.
You can write long functions in a bad way, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying the rule that the length itself is an anti-pattern has no inherent validity.
I wonder if sea cables could be designed with some mechanism that could stand being dragged and even crossed somewhere but returning later to its position automatically with a click. Something like a giant karabiner.
I believe the this doesn't apply if you're using existing APIs or using GPL code as a library, otherwise many many corporate codebases would be forced to be open sourced.
I've never seen such a clear plane crash, shocking
> Arguably the kinds of antibiotics we need the most are ones with significant side effects

I don’t think there can be a better example of perverse incentives than this.
One of the points is that it is resilient across a 'state failure' because it's not associated with a state.

That's precisely one of it's key differentiators from fiat.

If you're meaning "when all states fail", well, everything falls off the table, and "told you so"-ing about Bitcoin might be just a little bit petty.
They did in the past but they are designed now to disintegrate without taking the rest of the plane with them. Not that something unusual couldn't happen, but the engines are tested on this very thoroughly, based on previous accidents. Even when it has gone wrong in recent times it hasn't been catastrophic.
If the variables were clearly named, I wouldn't have to read much at all, unless I was interested in the details. I reitrate: why does the length of the single function with no reuse matter?
> There comes the standard "IO" excuse :)

You know, if I was flame-baiting, I would go ahead and say 'there goes the standard 'performance is more important than actually shipping' comment. I won't and I will address your notes even though unsubstantiated.

> Effective use of IO at such scale implies high-quality DB driver accompanied by performant concurrent runtime that can multiplex many outstanding IO requests over few threads in parallel. This is significantly influenced by the language of choice and particular patterns it encourages with its libraries.

In my experience, the bottleneck is mostly on the 'far side' of the IO from the app's PoV.

> I can assure you - databases like MySQL are plenty fast and e.g. single-row queries are more than likely to be bottlenecked on Ruby's end.

I can assure you, Ruby apps have no issues whatsoever with single-row queries. Even if they did, the speed-up would be at most constant if written in a faster language.

> Inefficient data transformations with high amount of transient allocations will run at least 10 times faster in many of the Ruby's alternatives. Good ORM implementations will also be able to optimize the queries or their API is likely to encourage more performance-friendly choices.

Or it could be o(n^2) times faster if you actually stop writing shit code in the first place.

Good ORMs do not magically fix shit algorithms or DB schema design. Rails' ORM does in fact point out common mistakes like trivial n+1 queries. It does not ask you "Are you sure you want me to execute this query that seq scans the ever-growing-but-currently-20-million-record table to return 5000 records as a part of your artisanal hand-crafted n+1 masterpiece(of shit) for you to then proceed to manually cross-reference and transform and then finally serialise as JSON just to go ahead and blame the JSON lib (which is in C btw) for the slowness".

> Many testimonies on Rust do just that. A lot of it comes down to particular choices Rust forces you to make. There is no free lunch or magic bullet, but this also replicates to languages which offer more productivity by means of less decision fatigue heavy defaults that might not be as performant in that particular scenario, but at the same time don't sacrifice it drastically either.

I am by no means going to dunk on Rust as you do on Ruby as I've just toyed with it, however I doubt that I could right now make the performance/productivity trade-off in Rust's favour for any new non-trivial web application.

To summarise, my points were that whatever language you write in, if you have IO you will be from the get go or later bottlenecked by IO and this is the best case. The realistic case is that you will not ever scale enough for any of this to matter. Even if you do you will be bottlenecked by your own shit code and/or shit architectural decisions far before even IO; both of these are also language-agnostic.
>but I guess it died down somehow?

I've heard that it lives on in Georgia.
> So, if no one reports the bug, how do you expect the bug to get fixed?

Maybe they should learn how to test software properly instead of squandering their money on nonsense features nobody asked for.
> When hand-rolling a parser, there could be accidental ambiguities in the definition of your grammar, which you don't notice because the recursive descent parser just takes whatever possibility happened to be checked first in your particular implementation.

Is that a problem? Just use a grammar formalism with ordered choice.
Wonder if there'll be a day when a hobbyist can buy a < $1k SEM?

Other equipment like spectrum analyzers, VNAs, scopes, etc. are now way more accessible, but they seem way less complex.
There are certainly classes of bugs for which refactoring is the path of lowest resistance
> A lot of people will simply not do this, even if they know they should.

This cannot be understated. When you consider the number of singles and young couples out there, it's pretty astounding how difficult it is to meet them in an organic manner. I totally agree with the person you were replying to, in the sense that people can get out there and just start meeting others, but it's still a tremendous investment of time and effort when the vast majority of other friendship-seeking individuals out there aren't investing anything close to that level of effort. I know because I've pretty much figured out how to just talk to people I meet in public, but it's still exhausting when your desire is to meet people who can be longer term friends or even romantic partners.

What makes things even more difficult is the limited number of venues where it's feasible or appropriate for people to meet each other. I recently considered joining a church in order to expand my social circle (and yes, as well as open myself up to spiritual experiences) but, frankly, church crowds today resemble senior groups. I love talking to elderly folks, but it can be difficult to relate to them on a close friendship level. I find this to also be true of other ways to form social circles, to a somewhat lesser extent. Many meetup groups are full of the 50+ crowd, and surprisingly devoid of the 20s through 40s crowd. I think the older generations are just better at getting out there regularly; young people tend to show up to a single event (and even paid classes!) and never return. I can't entirely blame them, but it's also a chicken-or-the-egg problem. Everyone complains about being lonely, but then they don't get out there and return to the same venues so they can see the same people repeatedly.

There's a lot of busy people, but I've met enough people who really aren't that busy that I think business is too often used as an excuse to not leave one's comfort zone. It's so easy to stay in the comfort of one's home that I think that's what many people resort to doing. Netflix, Reddit, Doordash, Amazon, Hinge, and Pornhub in combination are much too immediately satiating.

The are many options such as:

- Going to pubs and striking up conversations at the bar

- Meetup groups

- Volunteering

- Going to places like museums and striking up conversations

- Singles mixers

- Bar trivia nights

- Taking classes

And far too few people do them consistently, if at all.
Previous related discussion (2022):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30403438 (100 comments)
Totally agree.

Just avoid chrome and all those chrome-derived malware and use firefox.
The search engine they linked to happens to provide a significant portion of Mozilla's revenue.
Well I, personally, would never have thought to prompt ChatGPT in that way. But that doesn't make me care about what it has to say on the subject...
Orcas. Nothing hath fury like an ill-tempered whale.
I've heard that for stubborn cases it works really well. It's true it does not lend itself to mass manufacture the way antibiotics do but I believe, a typical lab with the right knowledge/equipment/resources should be able to do it. I saw a documentary a long time back where they do it Georgia, not sure how legit it is.
This is not my experience. Multiple inheritance within a code base of certain sub-functionalities and states is a perfectly good example of reuse. You do not need to go all the way out to the library level. In fact, it is the abstract bases that really minimize the reusable parts that I find most useful.

I'm not saying you have to use classes to do this, but they certainly get the job done.
How do you know Christmas simply didn't align itself to those holidays themselves, because after all, a year end winter feast is nothing new in history? Or that the traditions we have today may have at once been part of such syncreticization but then died out until the modern day? In other words we don't necessarily have to see such traditions today per se for Christmas to have absorbed them over its time.
https://archive.is/QrWFh
I hadn't thought of it that way before, but I think you have a good point. The real idea behind "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." often isn't praise for Guido's time machine - sometimes it's "please just accept the 15th competing standard (https://xkcd.com/927/), we worked really hard on it and it fixes real problems". And where packaging in particular has failed, it has a lot to do with not wanting to leave people behind or force them to switch. (You can still see the scars of the 2->3 migration all over these discussions.)

People often criticize the "move fast and break things" philosophy, but I do think it's important to "keep moving, point where you're going and stop pretending the super-glued cracks aren't there". I do have a post in mind about that topic generally, but not as part of this series.
I don't understand the architecture section. The title is "layered architecture," but then it talks about Ports/Adapters, which would be hexagonal architecture?
russia is a terrorist state
the article doesn't exactly present data, if someone is talking about the global climate i expect to see sharp quantification and low errors along time series data

what is there to critique exactly?
First season was like "let's see which character they bring back from the old series(es) this episode just to kill them off".
On the contrary, it shows that the censorship mechanism is post-generation and stops it once it deems the output accumulated so far "improper". It just runs after every token.
> The main benefit of Liskov's substitution principle is ensure developers don't need to dig into each and every concrete implementation to be able to reason locally about the code.

Yeah, but doesn't help in this context (enable local reasoning) if the objects passed around have too much magic or are mutated all over the place. The enterprise OOP from 2010s was a clusterfuck full of unexpected side effects.
What would a "llvm compilable" hello world look like that matches the libc GPU example for "AGX" (Apple Graphics)? It's not possible from MacOS, right? It'd have to be done from Linux?
HN: TaskCard – A local-first, privacy-focused task planner
Hi HN! I created TaskCard to solve common frustrations with existing task management tools. The key differentiator is its focus on natural human behavior patterns and strict privacy protection through local-first architecture.
Key Features:

Time-based task planning with visual scheduling
Multi-column layout for different types of activities or projects
Smart rescheduling that adapts to your actual work patterns
Works entirely offline with no data leaving your device
Zero tracking or analytics - your data stays yours

Technical Implementation:

Built with Vue.js
Local-first architecture using browser storage
Minimal external dependencies
Progressive Web App capabilities
Clean, responsive UI

I'd especially love feedback on:

The time-block scheduling approach - does it match your workflow?
What additional features would make this more useful for your daily planning?
Are there specific integrations you'd find valuable while maintaining privacy?
How can the interface be more intuitive?

I'd love to hear your thoughts, especially:
What's broken?
What's missing?
What's confusing?
What would make you actually use this daily?

You can give feedback from this form -> https://form.jotform.com/243597239477978
Why the assumption that every human is worth the same as any other human? Some humans are truly human garbage. Is a mass murderer worth the same as a doctor?
Lit Hub's 50 Noteworthy Nonfiction Books of 2024
That’s why you use a language where the build tool of choice changes every month?
There is a metric or code already that shows when the recycling happens - if I recall correctly it’s at least a couple of times per day, but I’ll check my notes tomorrow…
To clarify: I wasn't saying the bull run is over, I'm saying it'll likely end some time in 2025, likely late in 2025, if history rhymes. That's what I meant about plenty of water to yet pass under the bridge. Like you said Bitcoin could still double from here.
Like you, a time machine.
I’ve never understood the use of SSE over ndjson. Builtin browser support for SSE might be nice, but it seems fairly easy to handle ndjson? For non-browser consumers ndjson is almost assuredly easier to handle. ndjson works over any transport from HTTP/0.9 to HTTP/3 to raw TCP or unix sockets or any reliable transport protocol.
Actually it should be the opposite. Claim one handle everywhere that you want people to associate as your “real” persona and then use unique names in places where you want to be controversial.
Seems like that commenter's comments are all AI, albeit with an atypical prompt.
I did Recursion, Upgrade and Dark Matter by Blake Crouch and they were all really fun easy reads. Highly recommended.
The article is attempting to use a scientific term of art, "cognitive load", to justify claims about programming. Those claim cannot be justified given the existing evidence about cognitive load. As I explain in my linked response, I nonetheless agree with many of the claims, but they're best understood as folk theories than scientific theories.

And I don't think condescension will make this a productive discussion!
Programmers and tech people should understand why cognitive load needs to be reduced.

All of us would scream if we saw how some bureaucrat at a government office makes you fill out some form digitally only to print it out and then type off the printout, only to print it out and give it to their collegue, who.. you get the point.

This is a problem that could be solved perfectly by a good IT process — a process which instead of multiplying work instead reduces it.

Yet programmers and nerds tend to similar wasteful behaviour when it comes to cognitive load. "Why should I explain the code — it speaks for itself" can be similarily foolish. You already spent all that time to think about and understand your code, so why let that all go to waste and throw out all clues that would help even other hardcore nerds to orient themselves? Good code is clear code, good projects are like a good spaceship: the hero who never has been in this ship knows which button to press, because you — the engineer — made sure the obvious button does the obvious thing. More often than not that hero is your future self.

People reading our code, readmes and using our interfaces got all kind of things on their minds, the best we can do is not waste their mental capacity without a good reason.
Problem: Strange New Worlds established it's in the same universe as Lower Decks in a crossover episode.
But how do you know it's real? You might be running Postgres on 5432 and them connecting to 3306 might respond with a lookalike mysql.
This is a youtube vs ad-blockers issue afaik, not a firefox one. Still not enough for me to ditch UB-O but prob enough to waste less time on youtube
But they need to be calibrated, which is a real bitch.

I used to work for a defense contractor, with millions of dollars' worth of that kind of gear, and keeping it calibrated was an expensive pain.
That might very well be but the future is not today.